The Left Destroys EVERYTHING It Touches

[Belinda]

Why do they just not care what they are doing to their own people? Answer: because the economy is still one of capitalist extraction of resources for export.

No.

Because they can enrich themselves and increase their prestige personally, and people from other tribes don't matter. So they will collude with whomever will benefit them, be they corporations, governments, ideologues, or crime lords.

You don't get it: they don't care about "humanity." And they're not "Capitalist." Most are nominally Socialist, like Mugabe, and practically Egocentric or Tribalist, just like Amin.

You don't understand Africa. They're not your European context.

Yes, but it so happens that it multinational capitalist enterprise (i.e. not communist enterprise) that is spectacularly failing to invest West African natural resources in Africa.

[Immanuel Can]

Why do they just not care what they are doing to their own people? Answer: because the economy is still one of capitalist extraction of resources for export.

No.

Because they can enrich themselves and increase their prestige personally, and people from other tribes don't matter. So they will collude with whomever will benefit them, be they corporations, governments, ideologues, or crime lords.

You don't get it: they don't care about "humanity." And they're not "Capitalist." Most are nominally Socialist, like Mugabe, and practically Egocentric or Tribalist, just like Amin.

You don't understand Africa. They're not your European context.

Yes, but it so happens that it multinational capitalist enterprise (i.e. not communist enterprise) that is spectacularly failing to invest West African natural resources in Africa.

Actually, China is all over Africa. They're buying up everything, using Africa as a colonial property.

Just go and visit, and you'll see.

[Age]

No.

Because they can enrich themselves and increase their prestige personally, and people from other tribes don't matter. So they will collude with whomever will benefit them, be they corporations, governments, ideologues, or crime lords.

You don't get it: they don't care about "humanity." And they're not "Capitalist." Most are nominally Socialist, like Mugabe, and practically Egocentric or Tribalist, just like Amin.

You don't understand Africa. They're not your European context.

Yes, but it so happens that it multinational capitalist enterprise (i.e. not communist enterprise) that is spectacularly failing to invest West African natural resources in Africa.

Actually, China is all over Africa. They're buying up everything, using Africa as a colonial property.

Just go and visit, and you'll see.

"everything"?

If this is what you are "seeing", then what 'it' IS that is DISTORTING 'your view' is VERY OBVIOUS to 'us' LOOKING AT 'your view/s' here.

[Age]

So bein' anti-reparations is bein' anti-freedom?

How are reparations moral?

Which is moral: makin' the truly aggrieved whole, or, throwin' a bone to anyone who just claims injury?

Which is moral: holdin' accountable the actual offender, or, blindly condemnin' anyone just becuz they happen to be alive?

Reparations would come in handy for the land the English stole off my ancestors in Ireland

I agree, but -- as the aggrieved -- the burden of proof lies with you. You have to show how your ancestors were screwed over (and I mean folks of your bloodline, not a generalization). You have to show how you, today, suffer becuz of that theft. You have to pinpoint the actual aggressors of yesterday, as well as their living descendants today. And you have to show how those living descendants have benefitted from that theft from long ago.

It is NOT HARD AT ALL to SHOW how the theft of one's own 'property' and way of life or living causes suffering.

After all it is even 'you', "henry quirk", who uses the "justification" for SHOOTING people DEAD if they just touch "your property". SURELY, if you BELIEVE you have the 'right' to SHOOT DEAD people just because they touch "your property", then it would NOT be hard AT ALL to SHOW 'you' that the STEALING of one's own land or country causes suffering, And, especially so when after the land/country is STOLEN and the people's way of life or living is ALSO STOLEN, these people are then FORCED to live in a way that they do NOT want to. If you can NOT YET SEE how these people, and their following descendants have NOT 'suffered' and 'suffering', then you are NOT LOOKING HARD ENOUGH.

By the way, the MORE you 'try to' "justify" your views and BELIEFS the MORE you end up CONTRADICTING "yourself" here.

[Age]

Time the US tightened up its controls against these international criminals.

Time to cripple the gov: without its Big Stick, international criminals got no protection.

-----

you can't give her money to "make it right."

And even if that worked: whose money?

Before Joe, the supposed descendant of slaves, gets a check, we ought put his claims to the test.

Gonna need evidence Joe is a descendant of slaves; gonna need evidence that Joe himself has somehow been inconvenienced by the enslavement of his ancestors (none of this, cultural/institutional/systemic discrimination manure...real evidence, demonstratin' how Joe's life woulda been better if his great great grandpappy hadn't been treated as property, is needed).

VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE to do.

And, 'needed' in relation to and for what, EXACTLY?

Also, who JUDGES the 'need'?

What else?

Joe has to identify the descendants of the slavers who treated his great great grandpappy so terribly (cuz any claim he has is only, can only be, against them).

LOL Is there ANY possible scenario where land/country/way of life is STOLEN from one, or where one is STOLEN/TAKEN from land, family, or way of life and is FORCED to be a slave for "another" and this NOT be SO TERRIBLE?

If yes, then please PROVIDE a list of such scenarios.

No, the blanket condemnation of whites won't do

WHY did you bring the color 'white' into this now?

What has the color 'white' got to do with ABSOLUTELY ANY thing here?

(Stan's family line includes no slavers, no claim can be laid against him).

But "stan", just like "henry quirk", is a SLAVER now. But either of them probably are NOT YET AWARE of this Fact. But this is just because they are BOTH, understandably, BLIND to 'Reality' and thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Then Joe must pony up the evidence that these descendants of slavers benefited from their ancestor's slavin' ways.

So, to "henry quirk" one can keep SLAVES and/or ABUSE "others", but ONLY if this one or their descendants 'benefit' from this OBVIOUSLY Wrong behaving, then, ONLY THEN, this SLAVING or ABUSING needs to be LOOKED AT and DISCUSSED. Which, quite conveniently for "henry quirk", means that he can just claim that descendants no matter in what period are NOT 'benefiting', and therefore NOTHING 'terrible" REALLY HAPPENED.

Talk about BLINDING "oneself" to thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

Pretty much: as in any criminal trial, Joe has to prove his claims, prove he's a victim, prove the accused is guilty (by way of lineage and actual benefit by way of lineage).

WHY do you think or BELIEVE that a person HAS TO PROVE that someone is BENEFITING from when the person is being FORCED to live a way of life that the person HATES because their ancestor/s were TAKEN and/or their land was STOLEN, to just SHOW previous INJUSTICES?

Why does someone BENEFITING, years AFTER INJUSTICES were done, NEED to be PROVED to SHOW that one does NOT like the way they are being FORCED to live now, after their ancestors were REMOVED from their way of living?

If you BELIEVE that a person who is being FORCED to live a way of life, in which they do NOT WANT, is NOT a 'victim', then I think you will find "yourself" alone in this regard.

Only then can the talks start about how many 0s mebbe ought to follow the 1 on that check.

LOL WHY do 'you', adult human beings, even think or imagine 'money' will 'RIGHT' ANY of the Wrong doings, which 'you' are ALL CONTINUALLY DOING?

'your' love-of-money is the third reason WHY 'you' are continually doing Wrong anyway. So, seeking MORE MONEY, for ANY reason, is only leading 'you' human beings FURTHER and MORE ASTRAY.

[Age]

Gonna need evidence Joe is a descendant of slaves; gonna need evidence that Joe himself has somehow been inconvenienced by the enslavement of his ancestors (none of this, cultural/institutional/systemic discrimination manure...real evidence, demonstratin' how Joe's life woulda been better if his great great grandpappy hadn't been treated as property, is needed).

Not only that...more than half of the people in the Civil War fought against slavery. They didn't have to, but they did.

And, the rest fought for slavery. But so what? WHY did it take 'you', human beings, SO LONG to fight against slavery?

Also, what do you mean, "They did not have to fight against slavery?"

If 'they' did NOT do it, then who would?

And, by the sounds of it, 'you', "immanuel can" certainly would NOT have.

Many men gave up their lives to end it.

And, MANY men created and caused slavery.

What do their wives, children, fathers, mothers and descendents get?

The 'knowledge' that their husbands, parents, children and descendants did the Right thing, FINALLY. And that KNOWLEDGE is completely and utterly FREE, by the way.

What else do they want? And, what for?

Or are they excluded because their skin was the wrong colour, even though one of their family members even died to defeat the slavery the Democrats had established?

So, to you, the so-called "democrats" existed BEFORE slavery EVER DID, correct?

Also, and by the way, WHY do some people of some countries fight and argue for democracy" while also complaining about what "democrats" actually do?

What are those over 110,000 soldiers and their families?

Human beings, OF COURSE.

What about the owners of the lands the south destroyed in the war?

Is that the land that was STOLEN from other previously "owners" anyway?

A good question here would be, "What about those "owners"? What ACTUALLY happened to them?

What about the civilians they killed?

What about ALL of the OTHER civilians, which includes children, around the world that have been KILLED from wars and WILL BE KILLED from and during 'you', adult human beings, WARRING?

What about their cut of the reparations?

AGAIN, if it is 'money', which is what is being thought about when the word 'reparation' is used, then WHY?

But, if returning people back to the lands/country, which they or their ancestors used to "OWN", and allowing these people to life the way of life that they want to live, then I am all for this kind of 'repairing' and 'reparation', and 'repatriation'.

And what is the final number owed?

Number of 'what', EXACTLY?

No evil is infinite. It must have a total. What is the total the Southern Democrats' descendents allegedly owe to both slaves and the children of Union soldiers?

WHY do you use the word 'democrat's' here, as though you are revealing some unknown truth?

The only REAL things you are revealing here, by using the 'democrat' word, are your confirmation biases. Which, by the way, you appear to be completely BLINDED TO, as well.

When will we reach the point where none of the South's victims and none of their descendents any longer have any claim at all against the post-bellum South?

It can't be infinite, so what is it?

And how do we know that total hasn't been reached already?

'total what', EXACTLY?

[Age]

Gonna need evidence Joe is a descendant of slaves; gonna need evidence that Joe himself has somehow been inconvenienced by the enslavement of his ancestors (none of this, cultural/institutional/systemic discrimination manure...real evidence, demonstratin' how Joe's life woulda been better if his great great grandpappy hadn't been treated as property, is needed).

Not only that...more than half of the people in the Civil War fought against slavery. They didn't have to, but they did.

Many men gave up their lives to end it. What do their wives, children, fathers, mothers and descendents get? Or are they excluded because their skin was the wrong colour, even though one of their family members even died to defeat the slavery the Democrats had established? What are those over 110,000 soldiers and their families? What about the owners of the lands the south destroyed in the war? What about the civilians they killed?

What about their cut of the reparations?

And what is the final number owed? No evil is infinite. It must have a total. What is the total the Southern Democrats' descendents allegedly owe to both slaves and the children of Union soldiers? When will we reach the point where none of the South's victims and none of their descendents any longer have any claim at all against the post-bellum South?

It can't be infinite, so what is it?

And how do we know that total hasn't been reached already?

And what about the descendants of Africans who sold their brothers to Europeans? And what about the descendants of Europeans who sold and bought men?

And, yes, what of the descendants of those who opposed slavery?

If we're gonna go institutional/systemic/cultural with all this manure, then then everybody today is a victim and a victimizer: everyone deserves reparations and ought to pay reparations.

FINALLY, some are STARTING to SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

And, who the ACTUAL offenders are, and, who the ACTUAL victims are will hopefully be STARTING to be SEEN SOON, as well.

We need a Blue Ribbon Committee to study this thorny problem.

What is the supposed ACTUAL 'problem' here?

[Age]

Interesting that it's the 'right leaning' who are always blithering on about 'freedom', yet they are the ones who are anti 'freedom' in anything that doesn't conform with their twisted view of 'morality'. 'Freedom' is fine, unless it's the 'freedom' of anyone they don't like...

So bein' anti-reparations is bein' anti-freedom?

How are reparations moral?

Which is moral: makin' the truly aggrieved whole, or, throwin' a bone to anyone who just claims injury?

HELPING the Truly 'aggrieved' whole is MORE moral. But what is ACTUALLY moral is 'you', adult human beings, STOP abusing things so that there are NEVER any more 'aggrieved'.

Which is moral: holdin' accountable the actual offender, or, blindly condemnin' anyone just becuz they happen to be alive?

What does 'accountable' even mean, to you?

What you call 'accountable' can ACTUALLY cause and create MORE 'aggrieved'.

[Age]

How can that be true? Your OP is a series of unrelated screeches, some stuff about the USSR and some stuff about Biden but no sign of them having anything to do with each other. There's some stuff about top down things but no sign of any reason why top down organisation is some exclusively left wing policy and thus none of what you wrote can be attributed to anything but feels.


There is reason to be suspicious about what your idea of moderate might refer to. For all of your FoxNews howlings, nobody sane considers Biden a trotskyite firebrand, he's boring, he'll be dead in a few years, and he won't really do much of anything between now and then.

Your checks and balances have been out of balance for decades, if not centuries. Now you even have a constitutional court that has been filled up with partisan hacks, which in itself is only important because you quite absurdly send virtually all your laws there to be thrown out. You have allowed your electoral system to be so thoroughly jerrymandered that now your political parties are hostage to total psychopaths and most of your elected officials are only afraid of losing primaries to the lunatic wings of their own party because they will never face a meaningful election against the other party.

If you wanted to fix shit, you would need to make the right wing parties give up their electoral advantages that allow them to win state and federal power with mere pluralities of the vote so that they had to appeal to a broad range of voters again. But if you just want to rant that it's all the fault of THE LEFT like the other half baked shitwits on this forum, then I guess you can knock yourself out.

Perhaps you can answer this question. Why are left leaning folks so incredibly nasty?

It sort of sounds like you may have had a run-in with some of the "woke" crowd. Yes, some can be outright nasty at times but I think your rant in the OP is just that. I can empathize with your sentiment to a degree but the overgeneralizations don't represent political reality very well. There are good and bad aspects to almost everyone and some people can be overzealous about political issues at times in just about every political flavor.

Will you list the ones who, to you, have NO good or NO bad aspects to them?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Just be patient and hang in there.

[Age]

Time the US tightened up its controls against these international criminals.

Time to cripple the gov: without its Big Stick, international criminals got no protection.

-----

you can't give her money to "make it right."

And even if that worked: whose money?

Before Joe, the supposed descendant of slaves, gets a check, we ought put his claims to the test.

Gonna need evidence Joe is a descendant of slaves; gonna need evidence that Joe himself has somehow been inconvenienced by the enslavement of his ancestors (none of this, cultural/institutional/systemic discrimination manure...real evidence, demonstratin' how Joe's life woulda been better if his great great grandpappy hadn't been treated as property, is needed).

What else?

Joe has to identify the descendants of the slavers who treated his great great grandpappy so terribly (cuz any claim he has is only, can only be, against them). No, the blanket condemnation of whites won't do (Stan's family line includes no slavers, no claim can be laid against him). Then Joe must pony up the evidence that these descendants of slavers benefited from their ancestor's slavin' ways.

Pretty much: as in any criminal trial, Joe has to prove his claims, prove he's a victim, prove the accused is guilty (by way of lineage and actual benefit by way of lineage). Only then can the talks start about how many 0s mebbe ought to follow the 1 on that check.

Africans who were exploited had to be handled more discreetly than were African slaves in America.

WHY do you think or BELIEVE that human beings have to be "handled", in ways, by "other" human beings?

This is because there were far more native Africans than Europeans in the African colonies, so it was necessary for the European colonists to control their labour by political measures.

In America these political complications were not needed as all that was necessary to exploit the comparatively few African slaves was to invent the paradigm that they were not full human beings but were an inferior breed. That is why the problem with African 'ex' colonies is corruption, whereas the problem with America is racism.

Are you SURE that there were NO, "they are not full human beings" thinking, thus racism or separatism, while colonization occurs?

[Age]

That is why the problem with African 'ex' colonies is corruption, whereas the problem with America is racism.

No, the corruption is all from African officials, not from "colonists."

LOL
LOL
LOL

Your PREJUDICES are BLINDING, to "others", "immanuel can", and, your BELIEFS are, literally, BLINDING 'you'.

When "colonists" are NOT 'corrupting' the ones that they ABUSING, the "colonists" were just outright STEALING.

Look at Zimbabwe, for example: there, all whites were dispossessed, and how die that work out for the Africans in that country?

You have about one of the MOST NARROWED and SHORT SIGHTED view of things, in this forum, to me, "immanuel can".

Of course, Socialism always does that, though Zimbabwe's Socialism was some of the worst anywhere.

Does 'what', EXACTLY? Dispossess all of the color 'whites'?

But you can't blame "colonialism" for it. That's just not plausible.

What does the 'it' word refer to here, EXACTLY?

And in America, a black man became President and was elected by popular vote twice.

AGAIN, WHY do 'you', adult human beings, add colors in your discussions here?

There, you're admitted to higher education more easily and on lower standards if you're a privileged minority...unless you're Chinese or some other "oriental."

So much for "racism" there. If anything, "affirmative action" makes racism favour the minorities.

Is this how you "justify", to "yourself", being a "racist", and using "racism" in your life?

[Age]

the problem with America is racism

No. One of America's problems are folks makin' a buck on racism.

So, to "henry quirk", 'racism' is NOT a 'problem'. Which, by the way, is ANOTHER example of just how people, in the days when this was being written, "justified", to "themselves" only, of being a "racist", and using "racism" in their lives.

Also, I wonder if there would still be a 'problem', for "henry quirk", if "henry quirk" could also make some money out of being the "racist" "henry quirk is?

Call 'em professional agitators. They're everywhere, sprinkled thru-out the country, attachin' themselves, lamprey-like to businesses and organizations. They, for pay, inflate mole hills into mountains, diagnose culture cancers where there are only blemishes.

They are part of that class of parasite who quietly create problems then loudly proclaim they have the solution for the problems.

Will you PROVIDE ANY examples?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Racists exist, yes: white racists, black racists, brown, yellow, and red racists. Men and women, young and old, rich and poor.

LOL If only you KNEW just how FUNNY and CONTRADICTORY this REALLY IS.

But they are individuals, poisoned souls.

But "henry quirk" BELIEVES that it is NOT a 'poisoned soul' in regards to this. Which makes this all the more HILARIOUS to OBSERVE, and follow.

There's no cultural/systemic/institutional racism. And those who say there is are drawin' a paycheck, of one kind or another, to quietly inspire racism, then, with fanfare, offer solutions to racism.

So, to "henry quirk", there is NO culture, or race, 'racism'. And, as for HOW, exactly, 'racism' REMAINS and WHERE 'racism' EXISTS, there is ALSO NO systematic NOR institutional 'racism', that is; to "henry quirk".

Those solutions? Always involve someone gettin' cut off at the knees and never involve actually elevatin' anyone.

WHEN ALL of 'you' RACIST and ABUSING adult human beings get what you call "cut off at the knees", then EVERY one can and WILL be 'uplifted' or 'elevated', as some might say.

And always these solutions are designed the appeal to that fatal tendency of mankind...

LOL So, to "henry quirk". the SOLUTIONS to the Wrong 'you', human beings, do ACTUALLY 'appeal to' the " fatal tendency of "mankind" ".

Some say the EXACT OPPOSITE IS True.

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people.

And, 'self-preservation', to some, involves just SHOOTING DEAD "other" human beings if they are just in "one's home".

And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But it is the unrestricted use of one's ALREADY GAINED inherited Wrong faculties WHY 'you', adult human beings, are CAUSING the MESS, in the days when this is being written.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others.

Just like 'you' do "henry quirk"?

Or, do you BELIEVE that you do NOT have this tendency?

This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

What kind of 'desires' do you have "henry quirk" that allows you to 'prosper' at the expense of "others"?

Whole generations of Americans have been eaten up by these professional agitators caterin' to this fatal tendency. Generations taught to envy, to rely on others, taught they can't get a fair shake cuz the white man has his boot on their throats, taught to subsist and hate, taught they can't and never will till they back this problem-solver or solution (which, as I say, never solves diddly).

When I was a kid: it was all about color doesn't matter.

Well that has OBVIOUSLY CHANGED for 'you'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN you are continually adding colors in what you say and write here.

Now: it's color is all that matters, that, and make whitey -- any whitey -- pay.

ONCE AGAIN, it appears to be all about 'color does matter now', to you.

Your continual use of colored words does SHOW that color does now matter, to you.

[Age]

the problem with America is racism

No. One of America's problems are folks makin' a buck on racism. Call 'em professional agitators. They're everywhere, sprinkled thru-out the country, attachin' themselves, lamprey-like to businesses and organizations. They, for pay, inflate mole hills into mountains, diagnose culture cancers where there are only blemishes.

They are part of that class of parasite who quietly create problems then loudly proclaim they have the solution for the problems.

Racists exist, yes: white racists, black racists, brown, yellow, and red racists. Men and women, young and old, rich and poor. But they are individuals, poisoned souls. There's no cultural/systemic/institutional racism. And those who say there is are drawin' a paycheck, of one kind or another, to quietly inspire racism, then, with fanfare, offer solutions to racism.

Those solutions? Always involve someone gettin' cut off at the knees and never involve actually elevatin' anyone.

And always these solutions are designed the appeal to that fatal tendency of mankind...

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Whole generations of Americans have been eaten up by these professional agitators caterin' to this fatal tendency. Generations taught to envy, to rely on others, taught they can't get a fair shake cuz the white man has his boot on their throats, taught to subsist and hate, taught they can't and never will till they back this problem-solver or solution (which, as I say, never solves diddly).

When I was a kid: it was all about color doesn't matter.

Now: it's color is all that matters, that, and make whitey -- any whitey -- pay.

It's the same here. Unfortunately these 'memes' spread and poison the rest of the planet--that's 'social evolution'; ideas that catch on. It's just sad that they have spread to countries that never had racism to speak of in the first place.

Will you list the countries that NEVER had 'racism', to speak of in the first place, and when 'racism' ENTERED these countries, to you?

[Age]

No, the corruption is all from African officials, not from "colonists." Look at Zimbabwe, for example: there, all whites were dispossessed, and how die that work out for the Africans in that country? Of course, Socialism always does that, though Zimbabwe's Socialism was some of the worst anywhere. But you can't blame "colonialism" for it. That's just not plausible.

And in America, a black man became President and was elected by popular vote twice. There, you're admitted to higher education more easily and on lower standards if you're a privileged minority...unless you're Chinese or some other "oriental."

So much for "racism" there. If anything, "affirmative action" makes racism favour the minorities.

Immanuel, you don't know how European colonists governed huge numbers of African people.

Actually, I do. If you had any idea how well knew, you'd probably think twice about declaring such a thing.

Nor do you know that corruption among African big men is facilitated to this day by a few rich men who have a financial stake in African minerals and agriculture.

No, you're infantilizing the Africans again. They are not helpless fools of Western interests: the bad ones are malicious colluders with them. They know what they're doing to their own people: they just don't care.

In ALL countries, in the days when this was being written, 'you', adult human beings, KNOW what you are doing to your own people/race. You, however, were just NOT YET CONSCIOUSLY AWARE of what 'you' were ALL doing to each other. You ALL also REALLY just do NOT care about the Wrong that you ALL do to "others".

Over there, tribe and status transcend any national loyalties or identity.

This can be CLEARLY SEEN and OBSERVED in ALL countries, and especially in countries like the one known as "usa".

I've lived there. Have you? So who is "naive"?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

the problem with America is racism

No. One of America's problems are folks makin' a buck on racism. Call 'em professional agitators. They're everywhere, sprinkled thru-out the country, attachin' themselves, lamprey-like to businesses and organizations. They, for pay, inflate mole hills into mountains, diagnose culture cancers where there are only blemishes.

They are part of that class of parasite who quietly create problems then loudly proclaim they have the solution for the problems.

Racists exist, yes: white racists, black racists, brown, yellow, and red racists. Men and women, young and old, rich and poor. But they are individuals, poisoned souls. There's no cultural/systemic/institutional racism. And those who say there is are drawin' a paycheck, of one kind or another, to quietly inspire racism, then, with fanfare, offer solutions to racism.

Those solutions? Always involve someone gettin' cut off at the knees and never involve actually elevatin' anyone.

And always these solutions are designed the appeal to that fatal tendency of mankind...

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Whole generations of Americans have been eaten up by these professional agitators caterin' to this fatal tendency. Generations taught to envy, to rely on others, taught they can't get a fair shake cuz the white man has his boot on their throats, taught to subsist and hate, taught they can't and never will till they back this problem-solver or solution (which, as I say, never solves diddly).

When I was a kid: it was all about color doesn't matter.

Now: it's color is all that matters, that, and make whitey -- any whitey -- pay.

It's the same here. Unfortunately these 'memes' spread and poison the rest of the planet--that's 'social evolution'; ideas that catch on. It's just sad that they have spread to countries that never had racism to speak of in the first place.

Will you list the countries that NEVER had 'racism', to speak of in the first place, and when 'racism' ENTERED these countries, to you?

Define what you mean by 'racism' then (of course you won't). Personally I don't think it's the most evil thing a person can be, especially as the word has been overused by fuckwits to the point that it no longer has any meaning. What does it matter if some kinds of people don't particularly want to be around some other kinds of people? That's hardly unusual. As long as everyone has equal rights under the law and they aren't harming anyone. I'm not the thought police. I put sadistic child killers much higher on the list of human disgustingness.